Ali Alenezi1, Mohammed Yehya1, Mohamed Alkhodary1,2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. 2. Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Abstract
This work evaluates the internal and marginal adaptation of implant-assisted overdenture cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) bars manufactured using conventional as well as CAD/CAM subtractive and selective laser melting (SLM) utilizing two scanning techniques. METHODS: An edentulous study model containing four dental implants placed at teeth sites 36, 33, 43, and 46 was used. The study cast was scanned and compared to the virtual casts developed from two scanning techniques, straight and zigzag motion, using the in silico superimposition process. Then, conventional techniques were used to produce full-arch bars that were compared to the bars fabricated using the two scanning techniques and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques. RESULTS: The conventional impression and casting techniques had the smallest marginal gap among the groups (P-value < 0.05). The CAD/CAM subtractive milling techniques in groups II and III had significantly smaller marginal gaps than SLM technique used in groups IV and V (P-value < 0.05). The analysis of the internal gap within each group showed statistically significant differences between different implant sites in all groups (P-value < 0.001), except when using the conventional impression and casting techniques in group I (P-value = 0.20). CONCLUSION: The conventional impression and fabrication techniques were better than the digital impression and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques for the fabrication of full-arch bars. However, both straight and zigzag scanning techniques and the CAD/CAM subtractive technique had marginal and internal gaps that were within clinically accepted ranges, and the SLM was found to be unsuitable for long-span framework fabrication with either scanning technique used.
This work evaluates the internal and marginal adaptation of implant-assisted overdenture cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) bars manufactured using conventional as well as CAD/CAM subtractive and selective laser melting (SLM) utilizing two scanning techniques. METHODS: An edentulous study model containing four dental implants placed at teeth sites 36, 33, 43, and 46 was used. The study cast was scanned and compared to the virtual casts developed from two scanning techniques, straight and zigzag motion, using the in silico superimposition process. Then, conventional techniques were used to produce full-arch bars that were compared to the bars fabricated using the two scanning techniques and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques. RESULTS: The conventional impression and casting techniques had the smallest marginal gap among the groups (P-value < 0.05). The CAD/CAM subtractive milling techniques in groups II and III had significantly smaller marginal gaps than SLM technique used in groups IV and V (P-value < 0.05). The analysis of the internal gap within each group showed statistically significant differences between different implant sites in all groups (P-value < 0.001), except when using the conventional impression and casting techniques in group I (P-value = 0.20). CONCLUSION: The conventional impression and fabrication techniques were better than the digital impression and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques for the fabrication of full-arch bars. However, both straight and zigzag scanning techniques and the CAD/CAM subtractive technique had marginal and internal gaps that were within clinically accepted ranges, and the SLM was found to be unsuitable for long-span framework fabrication with either scanning technique used.
Authors: Sarah Amin; Hans Peter Weber; Matthew Finkelman; Khaled El Rafie; Yukio Kudara; Panos Papaspyridakos Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: María Peñarrocha-Diago; José Carlos Balaguer-Martí; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; José Francisco Balaguer-Martínez; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; Rubén Agustín-Panadero Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Paolo Cappare; Gianpaolo Sannino; Margherita Minoli; Pietro Montemezzi; Francesco Ferrini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Francesco G Mangano; Giovanni Veronesi; Uli Hauschild; Eitan Mijiritsky; Carlo Mangano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240